Promoting latrine construction and use in rural villages practicing open defecation: process evaluation in connection with a randomised controlled trial in Orissa, India

BMC Research Notes

Thomas Clasen¹  Bishakha Bhanja²  Wolf-Peter Schmidt⁴  Belen Torondel⁴  Parimita Routray⁴  Shubajyoti Ray³  Peppin Sosai³  Sophie Boisson⁴ 

[1] Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA;WaterAid, Bhubaneswar, India;Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, India;Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom

关键词: Process evaluation;    Cluster-randomised trial;    Total Sanitation Campaign;    Sanitation;   

Others  :  1131784
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-7-486

 received in 2014-07-18, accepted in 2014-07-24,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Our group conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 100 villages of Orissa, India to measure the impact of a rural sanitation intervention implemented under the government of India's Total Sanitation Campaign, on diarrhoea and soil-transmitted helminth infections. This paper reports on a process evaluation conducted in the context of the trial.

Methods

Process evaluation data were collected through review of key documentation, quantitative surveys, direct observations, and semi-structured interviews with staff from implementing NGOs and community members. Between March 2011 and March 2012, trained enumerators recorded observations on latrine construction status every 6–8 weeks in the 50 intervention villages and noted activities reported to have taken place based on NGO staff interviews and review of NGO records. A survey among 10% of households in intervention and control villages was conducted to compare levels of awareness of key intervention components. In addition, 10% of village water and sanitation committee (VWSC) members were interviewed to measure their level of involvement in the intervention delivery.

Results

The percentage of households with a latrine (completed or under construction) increased from 8% at baseline to 66% one year after the start of the intervention in March 2012. Almost none of the intervention households recall any form of participatory community-level activities at the start of the programme, although intervention households were generally more aware of the Total Sanitation Campaign (91% versus 49%, p < 0.001), VWSCs (51% versus 9%, p < 0.001), adolescent girls groups (23% versus 8%, p < 0.01), wall paintings (44% versus 7%, p < 0.001) and were more likely to report a household visit on sanitation during the past three months (65% versus 3%, p < 0.001). We found no strong evidence of an association between levels of awareness of or participation in mobilisation activities and levels of latrine coverage in intervention villages.

Conclusions

The levels of coverage achieved and the levels of awareness of the mobilisation process in our intervention villages were lower than planned, but similar to those reported elsewhere in India under the TSC. Our process evaluation highlights important gaps between the TSC guidelines and their implementation on the ground.

Trial registration

Number on clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01214785

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Boisson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]WHO/UNICEF: Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-Water: 2013 Update. Geneva: WHO; 2013.
• [2]Pruss-Unstun A, Bos R, Gore F, Bartram J: Safer water, better health: costs, benefitsandsustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
• [3]Clasen TF, Bostoen K, Schmidt WP, Boisson S, Fung IC, Jenkins MW, Scott B, Sugden S, Cairncross S: Interventions to improve disposal of human excreta for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 6:CD007180.
• [4]Ziegelbauer K, Speich B, Mausezahl D, Bos R, Keiser J, Utzinger J: Effect of sanitation on soil-transmitted helminth infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2012, 9:e1001162.
• [5]Dangour AD, Watson L, Cumming O, Boisson S, Che Y, Velleman Y, Cavill S, Allen E, Uauy R: Interventions to improve water quality and supply, sanitation and hygiene practices, and their effects on the nutritional status of children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013., 8CD009382
• [6]Clasen T, Boisson S, Routray P, Cumming O, Jenkins M, Ensink JH, Bell M, Freeman MC, Peppin S, Schmidt WP: The effect of improved rural sanitation on diarrhoea and helminth infection: design of a cluster-randomized trial in Orissa, India. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2012, 9:7.
• [7]Government of India: Central Rural Sanitation Programme Total Sanitation Campaign. Ministry of Rural Development: Department of Drinking Water Supply; 2007. Available: http://indiasanitationportal.org/sites/default/files/TSC%20-%20Guidelines.pdf webcite
• [8]Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J: Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 2006, 332:413-6.
• [9]Wight DOA: Effective sexual health interventions: issues in experimental evaluation. Edited by Stephenson IJ, Bonell C. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002:151-66.
• [10]Linnan L, Steckler A: Process evaluation and public health interventions: An overview. In Process Evaluation in Public Health Interventions and Research, 1–23. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2002.
• [11]Government of India: Puri – Fact Sheet. In District Level Household and Facility survey (DLHFS-3). Mumbai: International Institute for Population Science; 2008.
• [12]Government of India Ministry for Drinking Water and Sanitation: Guidelines on Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA). 2012. Available: http://www.mdws.gov.in/sites/upload_files/ddws/files/pdfs/Final%20Guidelines%20(English).pdf webcite
• [13]Pattanayak SK, Yang JC, Dickinson KL, Poulos C, Patil SR, Mallick RK, Blitstein JL, Praharaj P: Shame or subsidy revisited: social mobilization for sanitation in Orissa, India. Bull World Health Organ 2009, 87:580-7.
• [14]Arnold BF, Khush RS, Ramaswamy P, London AG, Rajkumar P, Ramaprabha P, Durairaj N, Hubbard AE, Balakrishnan K, Colford JM Jr: Causal inference methods to study nonrandomized, preexisting development interventions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010, 107:22605-10.
• [15]WaterAid: Feeling the Pulse: A Study of the Total Sanitation Campaign in Five States. 2008.
• [16]Barnard S, Routray P, Majorin F, Peletz R, Boisson S, Sinha A, Clasen T: Impact of Indian Total Sanitation Campaign on latrine coverage and use: a cross-sectional study in Orissa three years following programme implementation. PLoS One 2013, 8:e71438.
• [17]Ganesh SR, Kumar SG, Sarkar S, Kar SS, Roy G, Premarajan KC: Assessment of village water and sanitation committee in a district of Tamil Nadu, India. Indian J Public Health 2013, 57:43-6.
• [18]TARU/UNICEF: Impact Assessment of Nirmal Gram Puraskar Awarded Panchayats. Final: Report; 2008.
• [19]Curtis V, Kanki B, Cousens S, Diallo I, Kpozehouen A, Sangare M, Nikiema M: Evidence of behaviour change following a hygiene promotion programme in Burkina Faso. Bull World Health Organ 2001, 79:518-27.
• [20]Biran A, Schmidt WP, Wright R, Jones T, Seshadri M, Isaac P, Nathan NA, Hall P, McKenna J, Granger S, Bidinger P, Curtis V: The effect of a soap promotion and hygiene education campaign on handwashing behaviour in rural India: a cluster randomised trial. Trop Med Int Health 2009, 14:1303-14.
• [21]International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International: National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06: India: Volume I. Mumbai: IIPS; 2005–06.